Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already communicates safety, and the description adds that the output includes both OHLC bars and realized volatility. It does not go deeper into behavioral details like period precedence, clamping, or subscription requirements, but some of that is captured in the schema. No contradiction with annotations exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single compact sentence with no filler, and the core output is presented first. The dash-separated use-case clause makes it slightly telegraphic, but every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The schema already covers interval and lookback semantics, and readOnlyHint covers the safety profile. The description supplies the output composition and use case, but with no output schema and no explicit differentiation from get_intraday_candles, the agent is left to infer the exact return shape and when this tool is the correct choice.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds no parameter-level guidance. The required parameter 'symbol' has no schema description and the description doesn't clarify it. The other parameters are explained reasonably well in the schema, so the tool description contributes essentially no additional parameter meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states exactly what the tool returns: OHLC candles and realized volatility. This makes the resource clear and distinguishes it from siblings like get_spot_price. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_intraday_candles, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'do stop-lossów i wielkości pozycji' provides a concrete intended use case: stop-loss placement and position sizing. This implies when the tool is useful, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.